Martin Spott wrote:
On the other hand it might be worthwhile to spend this effort once we
have a means to reliably convert airport layouts back and forth between
vector layout and X-Plane format.
To my opinion the X-Plane format isn't qualified for accurate runway and
taxiway layout. It's
First let me say that I find it great if you and others look through old
documents and submit updates. And I'm sorry to say that I have a little
problem with this particular version, or two:
* Dick Maurer -- Thursday 13 October 2005 23:58:
I've updated and Attached Readme.joystick.html.
Huh?
Andy Ross wrote:
Hardware mixing is, of course, the best solution, but note also that
OpenAL can be built with any of a zillion back ends, among them the
various sounds servers (esd, arts) which do their own mixing.
In fact they *all* get included and an option in ~/.openalrc can define
Ah oke I'll explain better what my intention was with this document.
I indeed only inserted a title, a new author, new version numbers and deleted
some old text.
Explanation: Title, well I just thought it was nice to insert a title.
Version number and deletion of link: I'm always a bit
Am Friday 14 October 2005 10:23 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At the company where I work as an IT guy if we update someone's work we add
ourselves as the author so that people can see who are the authors and ask
questions about the document to the new author also.
So It was not my intention to
On 14 Oct 2005, at 08:33, Oliver Schroeder wrote:Finding the "right" port isn't easy, since we have about 32 thousand (64 thousand on newer OSes) to choose from ;) However, I decided to use port 5000 on the server-side (and 5001 for telnet), both ports are configurable but these are the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you guys do this? Then I'll adapt to that.
Just add an extra copyright statement below the others.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Friday 14 October 2005 10:23:
Then I'll adapt to that.
I've committed already. Your name is in the log. I think that this
is sufficient for that case. Thanks!
m.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
Oke I understood all the comments. I'll adapt them.
Thanks for the explanations.
Cheers,
Dick
Citeren Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Friday 14 October 2005 10:23:
Title, well I just thought it was nice to insert a title.
Agreed. :-)
Version number and deletion
Am Friday 14 October 2005 10:37 schrieb James Turner:
It would be better to pick a port range that is entirely unused, for
two reasons:
There is no unused range of ports, but see below.
- I think there's an implicit assumption that if the TCP port is well-
known, the UDP port is reserved
Does anyone know if the DME calculation to a VORTAC is based on slant
range? Noticed when flying over a fix say at FL350, the range goes down
to zero at station passage. It should be the AGLvalue of the aircraft
over the station.
OTH a waypoint based on radial intersections or GPS would go to
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, George Patterson wrote:
[snip]
Gawd, I don't belive that I am commenting on a patch.
Thanks for your comments! (I'm having similar feelings every time I am
sending a patch, esp. to a minor thing like the docs...)
I'm fairly certain that the selective positioin forwarding
On 14 Oct 2005, at 10:27, Oliver Schroeder wrote:But I do admit, that it might be a huge barrier for a user to alter firewall rules as needed. But anyway, using a fallback mechanism leads to everyone using tcp connections, as they would simply work. And I repeat, you don't want tcp in
All other ports (1024) are free for use for any application. All we have to
take care about is, that these ports are unlikely used by other applications
at the same time. A good example of what will _not_ work is using port 6000+
for incoming connections, since it is used by X-Servers.
Why
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
Am Friday 14 October 2005 10:37 schrieb James Turner:
- I think there's an implicit assumption that if the TCP port is well-
known, the UDP port is reserved for your use
I take well known as a well defined term, refering to ports 1-1024,
assigned
by the IANA. In
Am Friday 14 October 2005 13:54 schrieb Martin Spott:
There are what I'd call two types of well-known port numbers. Think of
common database servers for example. Nobody would chose port 5432 for
their application although it's not below 1024. A fine explanation and
a set of the respective
Am Friday 14 October 2005 12:54 schrieb James Turner:
I simply don't agree with that statement - many Windows games offer
both options, for this exact reason. The notion that using TCP for
multiplayer games is inadvisable is simply unfounded in my
experience. It is certainly 'conventional
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
To my opinion the X-Plane format isn't qualified for accurate runway and
taxiway layout.
This is Harald's opinion as well as mine ! _But_: Our opinion on this
format actually does not change it. Right ?
And as long as FG sticks to rely on this
On Freitag 14 Oktober 2005 15:20, Oliver Schroeder wrote:
I don't call TCP evil / bad / slow. I just think that TCP is not usable
for out purpose. Please note that I'm talking _only_ about the transmission
of multiplayer data (position, actions, etc).
Well, UDP is just aprioriate for realtime
James Turner wrote:
This stops FG providing a TCP alternative to UDP on the same port,
which is something I think should be done anyway. Requiring people to
update their firewall NAT tables is not a long term approach, even
assuming the user is permittd to do such a thing
This is a
i have seen som time ago, a post on this list, from some one who wanted
to model rain dromps over windsheild and asking for pictures/video with
that from real world.
A few weeks ago i had flown in verry bad weather with a cessna 172 and
i took some pictures and videos... if any body whaant them,
Hi Andy,
thanks for the hint and patch. I should have searched in the mail archive.
With the patch it compiles fine.
Thanks
Matthias
This is a known bug when compiling on a 64 bit system. I fix it in my
tree by double casting:
--- AIBase.cxx 5 Sep 2005 13:25:09 - 1.41
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:54:47 +0200, Harald wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
To my opinion the X-Plane format isn't qualified for accurate
runway and taxiway layout.
This is Harald's opinion as well as mine ! _But_: Our opinion on
this
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:58:51 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Friday 14 October 2005 10:23:
At the company where I work as an IT guy if we update someone's work
we add ourselves as the author so that people can see who are the
authors and ask
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:04:09 +0200 (IST), Vassilii wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does anyone know if the DME calculation to a VORTAC is based on
slant range? Noticed when flying over a fix say at FL350, the range
goes down to zero at station passage. It should be the AGLvalue of
25 matches
Mail list logo
